Leave a Comment Sagesse
BREAKING: JUDGE RULES THAT “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
September 9, 2010
By Eden James
Great news breaking from the Los Angeles Times:
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.
Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.
Rachel Maddow was immediately on it:
Anderson
Click here to read the PDF of the court’s ruling.
Or the Scribd version:
More to come as news develops…
UPDATE: Courage Campaign Chairman and Founder Rick Jacobs issued the following statement:
“Today’s ruling is not just a victory for the LGBT community, but for our military, our security, and for U.S. taxpayers. Asking soldiers to lie about who they are destroys the trust on which an effective fighting force is reliant, and discrimination of any kind undermines the values that generations of Americans–including LGBT Americans–have fought and died to defend. We thank and congratulate the Log Cabin Republicans for their tremendous work in prosecuting this case. It is our hope that the Senate will act quickly to repeal this failed policy, so that we can avoid a lengthy and costly appeals process, and get on with the business of ensuring all patriotic Americans are able to serve our country with honor and dignity.”
UPDATE: A statement from Servicemembers United:
“This is an historic moment and an historic ruling for the gay military community,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a multi-lingual U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ “As the only named injured party in this case, I am exceedingly proud to have been able to represent all who have been impacted and had their lives ruined by this blatantly unconstitutional policy. We are finally on our way to vindication.”
UPDATE: Statement from the Log Cabin Republicans, the group that brought the case to court:
“As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don’t Ask Don’t Tell statute violates the Constitution,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican servicemembers, but all American servicemembers.”
“We are delighted with the court’s ruling in favor of Log Cabin Republicans in this important case. The court’s opinion finds that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional, and the court will issue a permanent injunction preventing the government from further enforcement of this unconstitutional statute,” said Dan Woods, lead attorney for the case and partner at White & Case. “This is a major victory in the fight for equality and means that military service will be available to all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Log Cabin Republicans brought this suit in October 2004. The case went to trial in July 2010 before the United States District Court of the Central District of California and was decided by Judge Virginia A. Phillips.
UPDATE: Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:
“We’re pleased by the judge’s decision, but this decision is likely to be appealed and will linger for years. Congress made the DADT law 17 years ago and Congress should repeal it. The Senate will have the opportunity to do just that this month and most Americans think the Senate should seize it.”
UPDATE: Statement from Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights:
“Today’s court decision declaring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional is yet another significant and long-overdue step toward full equality for all Americans. Along with the recent federal court decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8, it is clear that our nation is moving toward the day when every American will be treated equally under the law, as is required by our Constitution.”
UPDATE: Statement from HRC President Joe Solmonese:
“Today a federal judge affirmed what the vast majority of the American people know to be true – that it’s time for the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law to be sent to the dustbin of history. With this legal victory in hand, Congress is right now in a perfect position to strengthen our national security by ending a law that has discharged thousands of capable service members. With House passage already secured, the Senate can and should vote in the next few weeks to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and allow every qualified man and woman the chance to serve with honor.”
UPDATE: Get a load of this:
FRC Statement on Court Decision Overturning the Law on Open Homosexuality in the Military
September 09, 2010WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council President and Marine veteran Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to today’s decision by a California federal judge overturning the law on open homosexuality in the military, most commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”:
“It is hard to believe that a District Court level judge in California knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on the record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed. Once again, homosexual activists have found a judicial activist who will aid in the advancement of their agenda. This is a decision for Congress that should be based upon the input of the men and women who serve and those who lead them,” concluded Perkins.
UPDATE: Think Progress was able to post some significant portions of the ruling:
In an 86 page opinion, Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled that DADT violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the servicemembers’ First Amendment rights.
Specifically, Phillips found that the government – which called no witnesses and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act – could not prove that DADT was “necessary to significantly further the Government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion” or that it “significantly furthers the Government’s interests nor that it is ‘necessary’ in order to achieve those goals”:
Thus, the evidence at trial demonstrated that the Act does not further significantly the Government’s important interests in military readiness or unit cohesion, nor is it necessary to further those interests. Defendants’ discharge of homosexual servicemembers pursuant to the Act not only has declined precipitously since the United States began combat in Afghanistan in 2001, but Defendants also delay individual enforcement of the Act while a servicemember is deployed in a combat zone. If the presence of a homosexual soldier in the Armed Forces were a threat to military readiness or unit cohesion, it surely follows that in times of war it would be more urgent, not less, to discharge him or her, and to do so with dispatch. The abrupt and marked decline – 50% from 2001 to 2002 and steadily thereafter – in Defendants’ enforcement of the Act following the onset of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Defendants’ practice of delaying investigation and discharge until after combat deployment, demonstrate that the Act is not necessary to further the Government’s interest in military readiness.
DADT “infringes on the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers in many ways,” the ruling continues. “The Act denies homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces the right to enjoy ‘intimate conduct’ in their personal relationships. The Act denies them the right to speak about their loved ones while serving their country in uniform; it punishes them with discharge for writing a personal letter, in a foreign language, to a person of the same sex with whom they shared an intimate relationship before entering military service; it discharges them for including information in a personal communication from which an unauthorized reader might discern their homosexuality.”
On the first amendment claim, Phillips found that “the sweeping reach of the restrictions on speech in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act is far broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the substantial government interest at stake here. ” “The Act does not prohibit servicemembers from discussing their sexuality in general, nor does it prohibit all servicemembers from disclosing their sexual orientation,” Phillips wrote. “Heterosexual members are free to state their sexual orientation, ‘or words to that effect,’ while gay and lesbian members of the military are not. Thus, on its face, the Act discriminates based on the content of the speech being regulated. It distinguishes between speech regarding sexual orientation, and inevitably, family relationships and daily activities, by and about gay and lesbian servicemembers, which is banned, and speech on those subjects by and about heterosexual servicemembers, which is permitted.”
UPDATE: Statement by NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell:
“Today’s decision by Judge Phillips—following other recent decisions striking down California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act—-is another landmark victory for LGBT Americans. Once again, those who seek to defend discriminatory government policies failed to present a shred of evidence to justify laws that are based entirely on prejudice and fear. After considering the overwhelming evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Judge Phillips held that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell inflicts severe harm on lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members who put their lives on the line to protect and serve our country, while undermining our national security by requiring the discharge of loyal, qualified, and highly trained personnel. This decision puts another nail in the coffin of official government discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is past time for our country to include LGBT Americans as equal citizens, and today’s ruling is a major milestone toward realizing that goal. We congratulate and thank the Log Cabin Republicans for bringing this historic case.”
UPDATE: Check out what Joe. My. God. has from the Twitter account of NOM affiliate “One Man, One Woman” (which is run by Louis, best I can remember)
But there was a follow-up tweet. Check it out.
UPDATE: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) tweets:
“Fed’l judge in CA has ruled #DADT unconstitutional. Great news! It’s my hope that DOJ does not appeal. DADT is immoral & hurts our military.”
Filed under: DADT trial,Trial analysis
191 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Can I get a Woot, WOOT!
2.
Bill | September 9, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Woot, WOOT! INFINITY!!!
3.
Andy Kelley | September 9, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Woot WOOOOOT!!!
4.
Bryan | September 9, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Oh my God! Such good news!
5.
Chris | September 9, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Was this judge gay too? Haha. JK.
6.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 12:16 pm
I love good news! This is GREAT news
The implications of this are staggering….Berlin Wall anyone….few more major bricks! WWWWWOOOOTTT!
7.
Jonathan H | September 9, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Clearly another one of those gay liberal socialist activist judges taking away our rights. Harumph!
8.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Big Smile
9.
Kate | September 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm
A woman, anyway. Bad enough in "their" minds.
10.
Casey | September 9, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Hells to the yeah! I am sure they'll appeal, but the momentum is insane on these rulings. Now if we could just get the senate to stop stalling on equality issues….
Off to drink a celebratory beer.
11.
Ronnie | September 9, 2010 at 12:18 pm
(I'm cross posting this from my post on Freedom Fighters for Equality)
In honor of DADT being declared unconstitutional today in LCR v. USA on the grounds that it violates the 1st Amendment rights of Lesbians & Gay Man…I dedicate "Little Soldier" by openly Gay Jazz/Blues Artist, Spencer Day to this occasion……<3…Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHYtdP10al0
12.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 12:19 pm
ps – I had to look up what WOOT meant before adding mine
WOOT! WOOT! WOOOOT!
Definition of woot :.
(wüt)
1.(interj.) Celebratory exclamation used especially in online role-playing games.
Origins: From whoot or hoot, a howl or other such sound. In humans, an expression of gratitude while, in animals, it is a form of communication.
Example: Woot! I gained a level!
Submitted by: etitameh, Topics: Computers & Internet
2. (acro.) We Owned Other Team. Alternatively spelled w00t or w007.
Origins: Initially used by gamers to express victory via landslide, now its meaning has been generalized to express accomplishment.
13.
Sagesse | September 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Absolutely fabulous… and subscribing.
14.
AndrewPDX | September 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm
W00T!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, I haven't been following this DADT case nearly as closely as Prop8… do we know if this will be appealed to a Circuit Court? If so, which, when, by whom?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
15.
Bill | September 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I simply can not wait to hear what Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher and that Elaine Donnelly FREAK have to say about THIS!
I bet they all just peed in their pants a little bit.
16.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Yay a woman judge!! Yay Virginia Phillips!! Another judge Shero
I scanned through whole ruling….can't wait until can sit down and read line by line
17.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Okay, everybody, how many active duty, reserve, veteran, and retired military do we have here tonight?
18.
Adam G. | September 9, 2010 at 12:29 pm
And may I just say – HOO-ah!
Take THAT, bigots!
19.
Kathleen | September 9, 2010 at 12:29 pm
This is a federal court in California and, if appealed by the feds, will be appealed to the 9th Circuit.
20.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Interesting for the 9th Circuit to be handed to related cases so close together! Hope it strengthens the case for both! Thank you for your expertise and resourcefulness Kathleen
21.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Tee Hee Hee
22.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Veteran, USAF, pre-DADT, but still no LGBTs allowed.
Got out after about 1 1/2 yrs when I fell in love with a woman, also in AF. Didn't realize until that time that I was bi. After many months of being in a serious relationship & little chance of being stationed together again, plus the strain of trying to fly under the radar, I requested & got an honorable discharge. While I was happy to join my partner, it was also one of the saddest & most difficult things I've ever done.
23.
Urbain | September 9, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Me too, Bill. I'm guessing they'll say something along the lines of "If don't ask, don't tell is unconstitutional, then the military is obligated to ask upfront and not enlist any 'homosexuals.'"
24.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Bill, I think they probably flooded the floor. Either that, or I just heard their heads exploding.
25.
Steven | September 9, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Sad that the Log Cabin Republicans are doing more for us than the HRC and DemocRATS.
26.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 12:38 pm
USNavy veteran. Also Pre-DADT, but hated that my first husband and I (this was WAY before marriage equality even looked like a reality, back in 1981) had to hide our relationship in order to protect my career and his VA health benefits.
27.
Bob | September 9, 2010 at 12:38 pm
big WOOT!!!!!!!! to our American neighbours, congrats, I remember the Berlin wall, it took some heavy hitting and pounding, hard work initially, but once it was weakened, it just crumbled, so too must this wall of discrimination,
Joy to you beers all round cheers Bob
28.
Erik | September 9, 2010 at 12:41 pm
US Navy. I served with a woman who was semi-openly lesbian*. It was never an issue. All that mattered was her doing her job. A friend I went through officer training with told me she would openly chat with her direct supervisor (a man) about their problems with women.
* Semi-open: Everyone knew, but she didn't talk about it.
29.
Dave in ME | September 9, 2010 at 12:42 pm
This time it is a LIBERAL activist judge! AND, appointed by CLINTON!!!!
Dave in Maine
30.
Laurel | September 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm
You got it right, Jonathan. The fundies will be all over this judge. She's a Clinton nominee and a Berkeley grad.
31.
Ronnie | September 9, 2010 at 12:46 pm
ROFL….how Ironic…<3…Ronnie
32.
Sagesse | September 9, 2010 at 12:49 pm
As Boies and Olson would say, it isn't about liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican. It's about all of our civil rights. The Log Cabin Republicans have been working on this case since 2002.
33.
mackenzie | September 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm
This has been an amazing past few months!
34.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Kathleen,
I hope you realize what an absolute TREASURE you are to our community!
LOVE (platonically),
Sheryl
35.
Richard W. Fitch | September 9, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Yes, Santa Claus, there IS a Virginia!!
36.
Kate | September 9, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Perfect!!!!
37.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I was on a softball team, sponsored by the AF (I think). Exactly 1/2 of us were Lesbian or Bi. Some probably a bit more open than others. As far as I could tell, absolutely NONE of the straight women had any concerns about us. They just liked that we were good at softball!
38.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Well, let's see here. This means that we have had a Republican judge and a Democratic judge, both in the federal judiciary level, both of whom have declared two different discriminatory pieces of legislation unconstitutional. IANAL (and I have not yet played one on the stage or the screens, silver or small), but IMHO, this only reinforces what Olson and Boies were talking about when they said that the Prop 8 Trial, and eliminating discrimination is not a Republican or a Democratic matter, but a CIVIL RIGHTS matter, and something that everyone needs to work on regardless of political affiliations.
39.
Anonygrl | September 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm
OK, now YOU get a WOOT!
40.
Richard W. Fitch | September 9, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Does that come with milk and double-chocolate chocolate chip cookies???
41.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Why do I feel like this is Chanukkah? I just feel like lighting candles in celebration!
42.
PamC | September 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm
A little late, but W00T-ing all the same! This has been a w00t-i-ful year!!!
43.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Shout out to SG wherever you are!
44.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:10 pm
What a way to start 5771! And for those who are not Jewish, Rosh Hoshanah (the Jewish New Year) began yesterday evening at sundown. This is going to be a breakout year for us, I believe!
45.
CaliGirl | September 9, 2010 at 1:14 pm
WOOT!
46.
Bennett | September 9, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Of course! Cause what it is she did is was, she ruled the MILITARY unconstitutional.
47.
rick jacobs | September 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm
How great that we are, together, part of history. Maggie & co. sealed their fate when they twisted people to vote against each other. They unleashed a movement and America's ultimate, although oft times delayed and tortured, march toward equity and freedom.
2010 is the year that shook the equality world, but it all began in 2008 with that giant wake up call. Nothing comes for free. We have to work and together we are!
48.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm
And unfortunately, you have just summed up the wording of the whining they will do about this.
49.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Thanks, Rick. BTW, L'Shanah Tovah! 5771 began last night.
50.
Dpeck | September 9, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Did anyone else just see the skit on The Daily Show about 'candidates' for SCOTUS from Staten Island discussing the constitutionality of Prop 8??? Awesome!! : )
51.
Tony Douglass in Ca | September 9, 2010 at 1:24 pm
USMC vet '82-86, straight. I knew a few gay men, they were not open at all, it was a very hostile time for gays in the Marines.
The times I was on West PAC, we were shipped aboard LST's, floating carriers for helicopters, I got the impression it was a little more open and tolerated in the Navy.
52.
E from Sarasota | September 9, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I served 5 years active duty BEFORE DADT. Would have considered staying if my sexuality was not an issue.
53.
Trish | September 9, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I'm very interested in hearing more about anyone's experiences in the military either during or before DADT. Sacramento Lawyers for the Equality of Gays and Lesbians (an LGBT Bar Association in Sacramento County) is having its 15-year Anniversary party on veterans day to celebrate and to raise awareness of the problems caused by DADT. Now I've got this great case to talk about when I MC!
54.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I'm just reading the decision and the testimony from former service members is so heartbreaking. This is another trial that, if it had been televised, would have changed so many hearts and minds.
55.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Yes, Elizabeth, it is not only sad but borderline abusive of the American public.
We were all allowed to watch OJ, but heaven forbid we are allowed to watch anything that is about something truly important to ALL of us, like civil rights.
56.
Sagesse | September 9, 2010 at 1:52 pm
"On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave one of the most important speeches on church and state in American history. Refuting charges that his Catholic religious affiliation would interfere with his presidential duties, Kennedy outlined the proper constitutional relationship between religion and government."
Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Kennedy's speech
http://www.au.org/homepage/features/archive/2010/…
57.
SFBay | September 9, 2010 at 1:52 pm
So, is there any chance Obama will do the right thing and simply let the decision stand? I have no confidence whatsoever that he will. At every opportunity to actually DO the right thing, not just SAY the right thing – he fails us.
58.
Kate | September 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Oh, so we "found" this judge, too? Wow, we really are good!
59.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Sad but true. Sigh.
60.
Joel | September 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm
L’Shanah Tovah Richard and family. May the new year bring you health, happiness, peace, and EQUAL RIGHTS!!!
61.
Joel | September 9, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Who defended this, and who will appeal it? Will be on the appeal merry-go-round with questions of standing, etc, or will this be more straightforward than prop 8 has turned out to be?
62.
Eden James | September 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Hey everyone — refresh this post to see what Tony Perkins said as well as read some significant portions of the Judge's ruling. Just updated.
63.
RebeccaRGB | September 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm
w∞t, w∞t!
64.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 9, 2010 at 2:05 pm
This is fantastic news!! My husbear has been SO worried that DADT would somehow keep him from getting his retirement pension and his VA medical. This is just wonderful news.
Now if we can just get married and have the feds recognize it…than we can relax a bit.
65.
RebeccaRGB | September 9, 2010 at 2:14 pm
The Department of Justice defended it. Somehow I don't think we'll have questions about standing here.
66.
Bob | September 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm
yes, Straight Grandmother where are you, you;re missed, hope you're having a little rest and relaxation, after the last of the olives were pressed, there's good news awaiting your return.
67.
Straight Dave | September 9, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Veteran USAF, 4 years. But I'm straight so I only count for 3/5ths.
68.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 9, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Does anyone know why the Equal Protection claim was dismissed (footnote 2, page 1?) Is this once again a judge playing chess with SCOTUS by avoiding the hot button of granting gays strict scrutiny, or was there a procedural issue, or ?
2 The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause in an Order dated June 9, 2009 ("June 9, 2009, Order"). (Doc. No. 83.)
69.
Kathleen | September 9, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Aw, thanks you two.
70.
Michelle Evans | September 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Hi Richard and all my friends in the P8TT community. Yes, I am a very proud veteran of 7 years in the US Air Force (73-80).
I should clarify that I was proud to serve, but also very unhappy that I felt I had to leave after my second enlistment because of pressure over people finding out I was transgender. This was in the days prior to DADT, and my enlistment was up before any official action was ever taken against me. I won't bore anyone with the details, but nonetheless I feel my military career was cut short because of transphobia.
71.
Ronnie | September 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Well smack my @$$ & call me Gay…Humpty Dumpty done cracked his egg……cross posted from a friend on FB….Louis tossed the LGBT community a crumb….crumbs are for mice, Louis…but thanks anyway….<3…Ronnie:
http://twitter.com/oneman_onewoman
72.
Kathleen | September 9, 2010 at 2:40 pm
The transcripts are available here: http://online.logcabin.org/transcripts-and-statem…
73.
SFBay | September 9, 2010 at 2:46 pm
anything Louis has to say? I'm a litlle suspicious of this statement.
74.
SFBay | September 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Sorry, left out the part "Sorry but do we believe" anything Louis has to say?
75.
Heather Sheridan | September 9, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Army Resrve Vateran here. I give that judge a big HOOAH!!!
76.
Heather Sheridan | September 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm
AHH the US Navy where 100 sailors go out and 50 couples return.
Ducking and running from the incoming assault that more than likely will fly my way. LOL
77.
Greg | September 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm
What a great summer this has been! Yay!
78.
Marlene | September 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm
The religious reicht *always* complains about the 9th Circuit being the bastion of "liberal activist" judges (except when they approve of religious-based bigotry).
79.
Mandy | September 9, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Rock On!!!
80.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Straight Dave,
In my opinion, ANY veteran who served honorably counts 100%. Those who are straight & support equality DO get extra credit.
81.
Sheryl Carver | September 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I'm guessing Steven doesn't mean it's sad that the Log Cabin Republicans are doing this, rather that the HRC & many Democrats aren't doing at least as much.
Disclaimer: I have NO idea if that is what Steven means. This IS how I feel, however.
82.
Adam G | September 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Oh, honey – for the beautiful level of cattiness and snark your codicil adds to your comment, I think we can make you an honorary gay man.
83.
New | September 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I sing along:
[youtube
84.
Ann S. | September 9, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Interesting comment from Gay Patriot blogger and GOProud member B. Daniel Blatt, denouncing the DADT ruling as judicial activism, just as he did with the overturn of Prop 8: "Here we go again. While I believe DADT should have been overturned years ago, I don’t believe it is a court’s role to determine military policy. Let’s just have Congress overturn this law to avoid a prolonged legal battle. [snip] From a quick scan of the opinion, my sense is the judge relies less on the actual text of the constitution and more on twisting past rulings to yield the result she wants."
Via JoeMyGod
85.
Joel | September 9, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I just finished reading the ruling, and it seems to me that the DofJ did literally nothing to defend DADT. Is it reasonable to assume that they will be as lax in their appeal? Could it be possible they WON'T appeal? And if they don't appeal, will Judge Phillips' ruling stand? Will it be another weird situation like the Gill case, where DADT is only unconstitutional in California?
It really seems they don't WANT to defend this…
86.
Papa Foma | September 9, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Army veteran – security!
after 2 AM my time -so glad I had to get up to pee!
Is it my imagination, or is the US Judicial System closer to earning its pay this year?
Na Zdorovieh – TT family!! (Eng, trans. "To health)
Papa, Felyx and Kirill
87.
RebeccaRGB | September 9, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Yes! I just saw this half an hour ago. It was awesome!
88.
Jessica | September 9, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I jumped out of my chair when I saw this on the Advocate! This is absolutely brilliant! Words can not express how happy I am about this news!
I just want to dance around to the remix of Heather Small's "Proud" with my little American flag held high! My heart goes out to anyone and everyone who have been silenced by the DADT. Hopefully you will not have to be silent much longer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCLtU2FaOyU
89.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 9, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Don't know but has already been labeled as activist. LOL
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
90.
chris84wa | September 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm
It's about time. I've had many gay friends in the military and they've always been fearful of coming out, kind of like being in high school, just way worse.
On another note, I had a fraternity brother that served in Iraq who became okay with gay people after a guy saved his life. The guy came out to him afterwords, totally changing his perception of gay people in an instant. How many more lives could have been saved if gay people were able to serve in the military?
91.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | September 9, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Wow! Great news!
As my city celebrates its anniversary today, we find out about this yet another historic decision that will ultimately put an end to the disgraceful and bigoted practice of discrimination against gay and lesbian service members in the US military! I am very happy to see there are judges that make these decisions based on solid facts, as they are supposed to, not based on their own moral views or moral and religious views of the majority of people. Court room is not the place for democracy! Justice for all!
– ♂K♥F♂
92.
MichGuy | September 9, 2010 at 8:24 pm
NOTICE:
It is possible for district courts to place an injuction on Federal regulations with a NATION WIDE Injunction. It has happened many times in the past and is a pratice that is upheld through case law and has been upheld upon appeals.
In this DADT case it is "claimed" that the Judge is in the process of attempting to draft a NATION WIDE injunction against the Defense Department to assure that they cannot enforce DADT anywhere in the US.
DO A quick google/yahoo search of the topic "district court nationwide injunction" and you will find plenty examples of District court decisions that have NAtionWide Injunctions attached to them against Federal Government and their agencies.
Examples here: http://hospiceaccess.com/?p=866
http://www.hollandhart.com/newsitem.cfm?ID=1399
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/removpsds/removp…
93.
MichGuy | September 9, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I am uncertain as to the standard that must be met for a District court to be able to apply a Nationwide Injunction to their decision. I do notice that a lot of nation wide injunctions issued by district courts seem to be dealing with regulations that deal with or seem to deal with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Election Commission regulations.
I am uncertain as to if the power of a district court to apply nationwide injunctions can apply to other none enviromental or election related cases but It seems to be possible to apply nationwide district Court Injunctions to a wide range of federal regulations of different topic's.
94.
MichGuy | September 9, 2010 at 9:00 pm
NOTICE:
It is possible for district courts to place an injuction on Federal regulations with a NATION WIDE Injunction. It has happened many times in the past and is a pratice that is upheld through case law and has been upheld upon appeals.
In this DADT case it is “claimed” that the Judge is in the process of attempting to draft a NATION WIDE injunction against the Defense Department to assure that they cannot enforce DADT anywhere in the US.
DO A quick google/yahoo search of the topic “district court nationwide injunction” and you will find plenty examples of District court decisions that have NAtionWide Injunctions attached to them against Federal Government and their agencies.
95.
Phil L | September 9, 2010 at 9:24 pm
It would be absolutely fantastic if she pulls that off!
96.
Sagesse | September 9, 2010 at 9:35 pm
"Once again, homosexual activists have found a judicial activist who will aid in the advancement of their agenda. " = Tony Perkins
If it was so easy to 'find' the right judge, you'd think the DOJ could have managed it in the DOMA and DADT cases….
And on the subject of NOM/FRC math…. is that one judicial activist, or is it three (if you don't count various state supreme courts?
97.
Straight Dave | September 9, 2010 at 10:42 pm
For those of you who are unfamiliar with my 3/5ths reference, our Founding Fathers struggled with how to count slaves for purposes of determining states' population on which to base Congressional representation. The Northern states thought that it was unfair to give the South more congressmen based on counting slaves that weren't allowed to vote. That would just give the South more power to vote to maintain slavery.
The infamous compromise that resulted counted each
slave"other persons who were not free" as 3/5 of a person for purposes of congressional representation. This was actually written into the US Constitution.200+ years later we still have difficulty treating all of our citizens as full human beings.
98.
Straight Dave | September 9, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Oops, forgot to include a good reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_comprom…
Or you can look in the actual Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. It's still in there, though invalidated by later amendments..
99.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Thank you, Sagesse. I believe I will contact Americans United about using this in my blog.
100.
Erik | September 9, 2010 at 10:55 pm
IANAL (yet).
It is possible the DoJ won't appeal, but I believe they will. It does seem strange that they did not put on much of a defense, although from reading the decision, it sounds like they didn't think they had to. (Based on the precedent they were using, the DoJ believed the plaintiffs had no case, so there was no need to put a lot of effort in.)
Again, I want to remind those reading that IANAL. I am only a law student. Please take my next statements with a huge grain of salt… I don't think new evidence can be introduced in appeal, and the DoJ did not present a lot of evidence at trial. That will really hurt their case on appeal.
If DoJ does not appeal, the case will be binding nationwide, since it is a Federal law that was ruled unconstitutional.
101.
JakeInPhx | September 9, 2010 at 10:57 pm
And don't forget it was a geezer (said affectionately only!) Nixon appointee who threw out that one part of DOMA. We got a three-fer in District Courts now!
102.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Same to you, Joel! May this be the year that equal rights become reality for ALL people, not just those of a certain mistranslation and misinterpretation.
103.
Straight Dave | September 9, 2010 at 10:59 pm
@Adam G.
I am honored to be included in your team. The qualities you all exhibit daily are those I want to be associated with.
But I have to admit I can't remember the last time a guy called me "honey"
104.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 11:06 pm
You count as much as we do, Straight Dave. And we are so proud to have you here in the P8TT family. This decision is as much a win for you as it is for us.
105.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Does anyone have the pdf of day 5 volume one of this. Where the other links are underlined on the LCR site, this one is not, so I don't have that one, and was hoping to upload everything to Scribd, since Kathleen already uploaded the decision.
106.
Greg in Oz | September 9, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Late to the party (shakes hand in the air and yet again curses time zone differences!!) but –
BIG WOOT!!!!!!! from Oz.
Major $%#@%$* news!
I'm running off now to go watch my Tivo and look at the Daily Show!!!! Cant wait to see John Stewart on this one.
Cheers all – let's hope this stands!
Greg in Oz
107.
Greg in Oz | September 9, 2010 at 11:21 pm
grrrrr….forgot that little button!!!!
108.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm
We have a granddaughter who recently got married, and she met her husband thanks to the USNavy. In fact, he updates his FB status with the countdown until he gets to return Stateside from Italy and be with her. And if it had not been for the Navy, I would not have met that Marine I met in San Diego when I was on my recruit liberty weekend after boot graduation.
109.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 11:29 pm
You are right Papa Foma. The US Judicial system is definitely earning its pay this year. And at least two of the judges are earning hazardous duty compensation as well, because of all the flying muck from NOM et al.
110.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 11:41 pm
I caught the reference, Straight Dave. Your attitude against discrimination is why you will always count as 1 here at P8TT, and why we are so glad to have you and proud that you are here.
111.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 9, 2010 at 11:44 pm
It probably hasn't happened since you left the south. In the south, everybody calls you "Honey" "Dahling" and "Sugar", especially if they are older than you are, or just seem to think you are good people to have around.
112.
AndrewPDX | September 9, 2010 at 11:56 pm
w00t!!!!!
What's more fitting than Prince Poppycock's "Yankee Doodle Dandy"?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
113.
Adam G | September 10, 2010 at 12:24 am
@Straight Dave: It's an affectation among the flamier gay men of my acquaintance (and I'm definitely a member of that group myself) to call people "honey." (And I'm not even Southern.) But what Richard said about what it means is true even when you're not in the South – essentially, you're good people to have around.
114.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 12:37 am
Of course!
115.
Bill J. | September 10, 2010 at 12:37 am
I don't know if this is related to how you're feeling, but it makes me very uncomfortable that our recent victories have been won by conservatives, Olson, Walker & Log Cabin Rebublicans. And a lot of the issues championed by more liberal parts of our community (such as employment non-discrimination, sexual liberation) have basically hit a brick wall.
116.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 12:50 am
Since Louis is still not only advocating the targetting of "small donors" of marriage equality supporting politicians, but actually publishing the CONTACT info of those donors so that people can go harrass them, I am not taking any of his "nice nice" comments as anything other than entire bullshit.
Remember, trials were not broadcast for fear of harrassment and NOM has not complied with IRS rulings to release their donor lists for the same reason. In light of all that, if Louis feels it appropriate to harrass others, he only proves himself to be a complete hypocrite and nothing he says should be given any creedence. (Hi Louis, you big hypocrite!) I've told both politicians that their donors are being targetted, and someone has apparently tried to contact the donors themselves to let them know that this is happening.
Yikes.
117.
Ed | September 10, 2010 at 1:02 am
Awesome news, but did anyone hear about the gas line explosion yesterday in Cali? We all *know* the right wingers are going to claim that it was gods wrath. Any thoughts?
118.
Kate | September 10, 2010 at 1:06 am
Horrible disaster. And yes, it will somehow be blamed on teh gayz……… Hand of "their" god striking? (But quite a distance from The Castro.)
119.
Franck | September 10, 2010 at 1:10 am
Well we could always blame it on The Call, who knows. Or on Terry Jones.
My fiancé lives nearby (a few miles away) but didn't notice it happening, go figure. But then again I was at the same distance from the Concorde when it crashed and also didn't notice. Wow, we match.
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1176 days, as of today.
120.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 10, 2010 at 1:18 am
Just loved the pic of Harvey Milk alongside Rosa Parks!
He is one of my new heros
121.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 10, 2010 at 1:22 am
And probably due more to outdated pipelines than anything else. After all, even the best quality of gas pipelines only last for so long before they need to be replaced. But then, I am using logic, which we all know is not a very high priority for the radical CINO's.
122.
Franck | September 10, 2010 at 1:26 am
Off-topic, since I see "CINO" being used: it's too bad Straight Grandmother is the only person I know here who speaks French, because I would like to introduce the word "Chrétins" (a pun on chrétiens/christians and crétins)…
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1176 days, as of today.
123.
Don in Texas | September 10, 2010 at 1:28 am
Friday morning post. US Army, 1959-1961, US Army Reserve 1961-1967 (yes, I'm that old). Sp4 on active duty, 1st Lt in USAR. Honorably discharged from both active duty and Reserve. Earned "proficiency pay," was "Soldier of the Month" during overseas deployment, Held Top Secret-Cryptological security clearance. Didn't tell and was not asked.
124.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 1:40 am
How sweet to have complete oblivion to major disasters at close proximity in common!
125.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 1:41 am
OK, that came out sort of snarkier than I meant. I thought it was kind of sweet, in my head… but it sounded less so when I re-read it. I meant it to be something to smile about, not as an insult.
126.
Don in Texas | September 10, 2010 at 1:41 am
I agree, Joel. The government relied only on the law itself and its legislative history. No other evidence or testimony was presented.
It also should be noted that Judge Phillips also found that DADT violates gay servicemembers' rights to due process under the 5th amendment as well as rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment. It will be very difficult to overcome these findings of fact by appeals courts.
127.
laura | September 10, 2010 at 1:43 am
How about having a date and time at the top of the posts on the main page?
Keep up the good work!
128.
Franck | September 10, 2010 at 1:45 am
Hehe, no offense taken. I guess can explain my obliviousness by the fact that I tend to dissociate a lot. I must have learnt that as a defense against the hostile looks and/or taunts I regularly run into. Unless I'm consciously interacting with someone, chances are I'm off to some dreamworld or something, even while walking the long way home.
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1176 days, as of today.
129.
Andrew_WA | September 10, 2010 at 1:46 am
I can think of no greater gift than to sacrifice oneself for the country that they love. To be willing to lay down your life for people you do not even know. Gay, straight, up, down, left or right – the fact that our people, our fellow Americans do this day in and day out simply amazes me.
It makes me feel kinda selfish in a way…
Question – do we, the LGBT community, have any social programs to help our soldiers in any way?
(I use the term "our soldiers" collectively)
I see many "family based" or religious resources where spouses or partners can get counseling and assistance should they have need. I am just wondering if there are any LGBT charities that offer resources for those of us whom are not in the military, yet are partnered to ones that are.
I realize it is a tough issue. I have many friends that one of them is in the military or both are and it is a daily struggle on top of everything else they undertake to remain hidden.
It would be great to see an LGBT charity sending over things that our soldiers are in need of – generically. I see many religious institutions offering these services, but have yet to read about an LGBT interaction.
Regardless of the charity – I think that sending something to remind them of home and that there are people that care – LGBT people – those that are hidden would get some support in a nondescript way that would help them. It would do their hearts tremendous good.
130.
Kate | September 10, 2010 at 1:49 am
Don't fret, Anonygrl. We know your exquisite snarkiness is reserved for the opposition!
131.
Bennett | September 10, 2010 at 1:51 am
Didn't have time to read the entire doc, blog, or comments, but let me just say that I am shocked beyound words at the some of the activities that read, although I have supspected what military life might be like when CNN i think showed pictures of the end of combat showing a soldier packing up his stuff, including a box full of porn which he didnt even attempt to conceal.
Could the military possibly find something other way to maintain cohesion other than sexual comraderie (prostitutes and porn). I think the end of don't ask don't tell might have the effect of draining the swamp.
132.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 2:06 am
Once it is ok for homosexuals to serve openly, this would be brilliant, but until that is settled definitively, it only provides another way to identify people as gay.
Which is fairly horrific, in so many ways! The idea that humanitarian gestures could be what gets someone thrown out… good grief.
133.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 10, 2010 at 2:19 am
I certainly hope that the judge will be able do a nationwide injunction. Why do people even care what another person's sexual orientation is? Well, I guess you'd care if you were interested in establishing a relationship with someone, LOL.
I have learned so much about the discrimination faced by the LGBT community. Why should you have to worry about losing your job because of your sexual orientation, why should you have to worry about your landlord finding out that you are gay, etc.
Question, are other, non-christian religions so anti-gay or is this a Christian issue?
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
134.
Mouse | September 10, 2010 at 2:28 am
Everyone who interprets the US Constitution to give rights to people the nutjobs are trying to take rights away from is automatically labeled an "activist." It's OK for them to do that, but god forbid someone retaliate by calling them "bigots."
135.
Freddy | September 10, 2010 at 2:30 am
I hope they peed their pants a lot when they had a massive coronary and died. I have no use for people like Elaine Donnelly, who pretends to know about the military but has no first hand experience with it just the opinion of a hundred or so 70+ year old flag officers.
136.
Mouse | September 10, 2010 at 2:32 am
I think it's more likely that any moisture generated in their pants over this news are more likely in excitement over how much money they will be able to <del>extort</del> fund-raise in response to this horrific news.
137.
Ann S. | September 10, 2010 at 2:37 am
Sheryl, I have seen religious people of many stripes engaging in anti-LGBT rights activism, including conservative Jews and some Muslims.
138.
Mouse | September 10, 2010 at 2:45 am
Or, let's just have a federal court overturn it after a speedy 2-week trial, rather than continue the stagnation of progress Congress has made in the last few years despite all the momentum to repeal this clearly discriminatory and harmful policy.
His efficiency argument, not really holding up to strict scrutiny.
139.
Kate | September 10, 2010 at 2:45 am
The xristians seem to be the ones who have the money to spend on destroying others' lives; they also seem to be able to appeal more to the non-thinking side of the population. Nothing like institutionalizing fear to get their way and legalizing hatred.
140.
elliom | September 10, 2010 at 2:54 am
"Served" 15 yrs as a Navy Brat (Dad, PO1/AO, had 22yrs, of which I'm extremely proud).
Include this only because, when one family member serves, the whole family serves, and it had such a profoud effect on my life. I went to 13 different schools before graduating, and can probably list where I haven't lived easier than where I have. I know the isolation and pain when family members deploy and commumication becomes a rare and special treat. I've felt the fear of not knowing when they'll come back, and the suffering of others when they haven't. I can't imagine what life would be like if you weren't even allowed this much.
And now, for the music: This one goes out to all our service members, past, present, and future. Thanks, Y'all!
[youtube
141.
Sagesse | September 10, 2010 at 3:09 am
@Franck
Absolument.
142.
Rhonda | September 10, 2010 at 3:14 am
Pre-DADT Army veteran
143.
Papa Foma | September 10, 2010 at 3:14 am
Bravo! Bons mots! – Felyx – Qui ne comprends rien de français… peut-être.
144.
BK | September 10, 2010 at 3:17 am
Well… I was a military brat, and I guess that sorta counts. The branch was Air Force (awesome, btw) and I was interested in joining the military until I found out about DADT. I would never serve unless I could be open about who I was. *sigh* This is such friggin' good news!! Wow… so happy…
145.
BK | September 10, 2010 at 3:22 am
I disagree, Steven. It is so wonderfully amazing that our victories are being won by EQUALITY-MINDED conservatives! That shows up those Republicans who say you can't support marriage equality and still be conservative.
Victories by the more liberal members of our EQUALITY-MINDED crowd would be nice, yes, but probably would help polarize the battle. Cheers! 
146.
BK | September 10, 2010 at 3:25 am
I love this crowd.
Great wording, Richard!
147.
BK | September 10, 2010 at 3:27 am
No wonder this place felt a little empty! Not to diminish the effect of all those WONDERFUL LURKERS who've started posting!
148.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 10, 2010 at 3:46 am
I agree Bennett, its horrible, but I'm not exactly shocked. LGBTQ persons have been vilified in so many ways, and military has a history of hazing and humiliating "motivational techniques"
I found Dr. Korb's comments beginning on p. 60 particularly illuminating. It talks of how approx 13,000 persons discharged and who knows how many more chose not to enlist because of DADT. It goes on to talk about how Military has lowered physical and entry standards and enlisted criminals to make up for shortage.
Its ridiculous that some of the most FABULOUS, TALENTED, Well-behaved persons the military could possibly have are condemn, ridiculed, rejected. BIG FROWN
I'm SO GLAD DADT is being exposed. Thank you to all you dear Military persons who have endured such garbage treatment. **Shaking with Rage and Indignation!**
149.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 10, 2010 at 3:56 am
Further more, all the discussions about "shower arrangements" paged 68-69 seem just plain DUMB. I seems to me reveals the absolute homophobia existing in many "straight" persons. I played sports in jr. high, high school and college and shared groups showers and thought nothing of it. "GAY AGENDA(in showers) = Wash, dry, get dressed" DOH!!
150.
Sheryl Carver | September 10, 2010 at 4:03 am
I understood your reference, too, Straight Dave. (The educational system was pretty good, back in the "olden days" when I was in school.)
Just wanted to be sure you understand that you'll always be counted 100% here.
151.
mandy | September 10, 2010 at 4:15 am
I thought Obama was having a hard time defending the lawsuit at the same time trying to repeal DADT. I wonder if it was because he took over the case from Bush that he could not just decline to defend DADT or was it because he wanted it repealed through congress instead of the courts.
152.
Elfwreck | September 10, 2010 at 5:13 am
Full text in HTML format:
Log Cabin Republicans vs USA
Easy to copy & paste sections from. (I love that court documents are in the public domain.)
153.
Andrew_WA | September 10, 2010 at 5:40 am
Anonygrl,
Actually – I was just thinking of having an organization just send over things all soldiers can use.
I see so many religious organizations sending over things like toiletries, decks of cards, and other stuff in a generic way to remind the soldiers of home.
If we could also do that, in a generic way, to me, it should not matter whom sent the packages. Getting something from home would be paramount. Who cares if it is a LGBT organization. Out in the field – cards are cards!
Most importantly – it would show that the LGBT non-profits can also support our troups and are happy to provide and help them out in the field.
Just the mere presence of an organization would boost the morale of an LGBT soldier that yes – we do support and care for them too! Nothing has to be said. Nothing has to be done. No raindows all over everything… just the basics.
I cannot fathom what LGBT soldiers go through in risking everything for the country they love. But I think this would send a very big message and if it helps just one LGBT soldier with their day – it would be well worth it.
Also – the partners of said soldiers could easily offer their time in helping support as well. Of the partners I know stateside – all of them said that they would easily donate a few hours on a Saturday to assemble packages for soldiers. It helps them talk about it and deal with it better know that they too have support from the rest of us and acknowledgement of their sacrifices as well.
My 2 cents….
154.
Dave P. | September 10, 2010 at 5:41 am
To me, one of the worst effects of DADT is the fact that LGBT service members cannot marry, EVEN IF THEY LIVE IN A STATE THAT HAS MARRIAGE EQUALITY. This is because simply getting a civil marriage license can be used as 'proof' of violating DADT, even if the people involved don't tell anyone in the military. That's completely messed up. I'm sooo glad to see this ruling.
155.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 5:55 am
OH! I gotcha! I had it sort of backwards.
Yes, that would be a thing to do that might well go a long way to showing we are "all just folks".
I have no idea if such a group exists.
156.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 5:59 am
I SO agree. All the nonsense in the survey about showering, one would think that the author of the survey had some sort of fetish. My basic concern in a group shower situation is get clean, get finished and get the heck out, because I don't find them at ALL a place I want to hang out. But those questions made it sound like taking a shower with a homosexual person present involves nothing but rape, rape, rape. Very offensive.
157.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 10, 2010 at 6:08 am
Does anybody here know how we would get one started?
158.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 10, 2010 at 6:09 am
Especially when the victim in a shower room rape is usually the homosexual person, and the perpetrators are the ones who say they are straight!
159.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 10, 2010 at 6:20 am
Amen Richard!
160.
Anonygrl | September 10, 2010 at 6:25 am
Yes. Look up information on starting a non-profit organization (there are tons of resources including a marvelous library in NYC to which I believe you can get internet access). There is a bit of paperwork that needs to be filed, mission statements and such must be drawn up, you need a board of directors (ideally with at least one either rich or influencial person on it, even if in name only).
Once the basic set up is done, it is just a matter of doing fundraising or gathering donations, and organizing the time to package and send them. There is some yearly paperwork, but any decent tax lawyer should be able to help sort that out for minimal fees. It might also make sense to contact other organizations that already DO this and ask them for basic advice, both as to how to set up and how to operate. Contact the USO too, they might have advice as to how best to have packages distributed on the far end, and there may be some sort of advantages to teaming up with another organization that has such routes established, at least at the beginning.
Another way to go would be to look for an organization that is similar, and see about volunteering for them doing fund raising or whatever.
161.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 7:05 am
And Straight Grandmother roars up, Tom Petty is blaring on the radio and she slams on the brakes and skids to a stop. She jumps out of the car and kicks the door closed behind her with the heel of her boot, shouting, “I won’t back down, no I won’t back down. You can stand me up at the gates of Hell but I won’t back down”
Two things, many thanks for the kind words of those who noticed my recent absence, it is humbling and greatly appreciated. Second, there are a couple people on this forum that caused me to not want to participate, and to them I am done apologizing. If you come after me and read into things I post that are not there be aware that I am done apologizing and I won’t back down, not any more. I am just going to say the truth, I think this forum is better when I am here. I am not the most important poster here by any means, just one of many, we have so many many many good and valuable insightful people here.
I am encouraged by the people who gave me shout outs and also By Rick Jacobs who used the word DISCRIMINATION in his press release on our GLBT victory over DADT and you know how important I think it is to use the word discrimination. And also by his words that we all need to work together. So let’s cut the crap and treat each other with respect and understand that we are not all going to always have the same opinion. Let’s stop looking for the bad in each other and look for the good instead. Let’s do what Rick Jacobs says, let’s work together, and let’s fight together against the discrimination that is heaped on GLBT people almost everywhere. Fight! Fight! Fight!
Unless you have something positive to post in response to this, please keep it to yourself and move on.
[youtube
162.
Bob | September 10, 2010 at 7:34 am
WOOT WOOT WOOT, you have the ability to make me so happy, welcome back, I agree, this site is much stronger with your presence, we need your help to end this here WAR ON DISCRIMINATION, welcome comrade, take up your arms, and let's get at er!!!!
163.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 10, 2010 at 8:23 am
Welcome back back SG
Woot! Woot!
164.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 10, 2010 at 8:25 am
I never heard of Prince Poppycock (Don't watch TV) but loved the video and watch his other performances on youtube. Thank you for posting!
165.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 8:32 am
New- Loved, loved, LOVED the video a real day brightner.
Merci!!
166.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 8:36 am
Bennet, did you read in the Judge's ruling starting on page 27 (I am pretty sure it was page 27) the treatment that Rocha received? Puke, puke, puke. How could he stand it? How could he get up every day and just put one foot in front of the other and keep going? His determination was/is amazing.
167.
Dave P. | September 10, 2010 at 8:38 am
Here's the link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-9…
I kinda like the big hunky nightclub bouncer who comes to our defense. Like my knight in shining armor! Fughettaboudit ! : )
168.
Chris in Lathrop | September 10, 2010 at 8:47 am
USArmy regular, 1996-97. Medical discharge, unfortunately.
169.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 9:13 am
@Franck, ha ha ha ha, yes a good pun indeed
170.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 9:17 am
Richard, I knwo it is a Jewish Holiday, I don't remember the exact name for it,, sorry. But here is to you Richard! Oh and Joel also. There is a woman who posts from time to time on here I remeber her being Jeshish also. Well let me jsut make it a blanket statement, Have a great Holiday to all our Jewish friends here on P8TT.
171.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 9:29 am
@DaveP, thanks for the link, sadly I couldn't get it to play for me, I'll try it again tomorrow.
172.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 9:30 am
You are right, that is messed up.
173.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 9:30 am
I wonder where Ray in MA is?
174.
Straight Grandmother | September 10, 2010 at 9:37 am
And now that we see even more just how important Judges are to our cause, did you know that Colorado appointed it's first Lesbain woman to become a Colorado Supreme Court Justice?? http://www.kdvr.com/news/sns-ap-co–supremecourt-…
More substantiation that this is indeed the Year of the Gay
175. From Lt. Dan Choi: Judge &hellip | September 10, 2010 at 10:34 am
[...] normally post the text of a full email as a post on P8TT, but as we’re drowning post-DADT decision, I wanted to get this up ASAP for folks to discuss. Let us know what you think in the comments. [...]
176.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 10, 2010 at 10:35 am
This is Rosh Hoshanah. Apples and Honey are part of the symbolism of the Jewish New Year to express the hope that it will be a sweet year, and a blessed one. And to find out during the first day of it that Judge Phillips had ruled DADT unconstitutional based on the First and Fifth Amendments definitely got it off to a sweet start. And then we have the hearing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6th, which is during Chanukkah, the Feast of Lights. Here is praying that the timing of that will be an augur of the light of equality shining brighter this year!
Thank you Straight Grandmother for remembering.
177.
Bennett | September 10, 2010 at 11:12 am
Maggie peeing her pants? How can that be? That's a direct violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man."
178.
Bennett | September 10, 2010 at 11:22 am
yes, they call you shugga and honey to your face, but when you're not looking, they spit in your lemonade.
179.
Bennett | September 10, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Actually that is he part i did read i think. Home now and thinking about reading the rest. I kinda feel like Im about to get mad.
180. DADT ruled unconstitution&hellip | September 10, 2010 at 1:27 pm
[...] abounds about what will happen now after Judge Virginia Phillips declared “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional, saying it violates both the First Amendment rights to free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to [...]
181.
Dpeck | September 10, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Hi SGM! : )
Thinkin' about ya!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFtsWy7WqJo
182.
BK | September 10, 2010 at 6:21 pm
SG! You're back!!! So glad to see you posting again!
183.
BK | September 11, 2010 at 1:31 am
Haha.
184.
BK | September 11, 2010 at 2:09 am
Watch: they'll blame it on gays, as you said, but then later discover the neighborhood to be 100% anti-equality… Ha!
185.
Straight Grandmother | September 11, 2010 at 2:39 am
DPeck- How did ya know?
I love rock n' roll
So put another dime in the jukebox, baby
Woot Woot back at ya Gregory in SLC and Bob, our resident rabble rouser.
186.
Dave in ME | September 11, 2010 at 2:47 am
As if the only people who are qualified to be a judge in this country are old God-fearing conservative straight white men. That's what America IS, right!?!?
Dave in Maine
187.
BK | September 11, 2010 at 2:51 am
"More substantiation that this is indeed the Year of the Gay
"
Giggle.
188.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 11, 2010 at 3:59 am
Here Ya Go, Straight Grandmother! This is cool, because this is one of my favorite songs too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Jjm1jzIig
189.
Robert Hagedorn | September 11, 2010 at 7:54 am
No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, gays in the military, etc., the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence in the story, was sodomy- the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.
190. Rachel Maddow: Lack of DA&hellip | September 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm
[...] of the foremost opinion leaders on DADT since her program launched in 2008 — talked about the historic DADT decision by Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday night and interviewed Major Michael [...]
191.
Lee | September 13, 2010 at 8:38 am
This is great news! It's like a domino effect, watching wave after wave of evidence pouring in that shows we're just like everybody else! It's crazy how far prejudice has touched our lives, and insane that it's taken so long for this country to see how it was blinded by prejudice. I hope more eyes will open as the laws begin to change.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.